A Conservative Rewriting Of The 'Right To Work'
|
|
- Lynne Miles
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A Conservative Rewriting Of The 'Right To Work' The problem with talking about a right to work in the United States is that the term refers to two very different political and legal concepts. The first is the broader concept of having a positive right to gainful employment a right embraced by the political left, endorsed in 1944 by President Franklin Roosevelt in his Second Bill of Rights and embodied in the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The second is the much narrower concept of having a right to work without being required (by an employer) to join an employees union a right embraced by the political right and embodied in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as well as in various state laws. The U.S. Supreme Court s recent decision in Harris v. Quinn is about this second, narrower right to work. (The plaintiffs in Harris were represented by the right-leaning, anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.) More precisely, Harris represents a new effort by the Supreme Court s rightleaning justices to use the First Amendment as a vehicle for expanding the anti-union concept of right to work. But Harris stands in stark contrast to how the high court s conservative justices have historically treated the First Amendment in this context. The First Amendment and the Broader Right to Work After a policeman in New Bedford, Massachusetts, was fired for political activity in 1891, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, sitting on the Massachusetts Supreme Court that upheld the local law that allowed the policeman to be fired, wrote: There may be a constitutional right to talk politics, but there is no constitutional right to be a policeman. McAuliffe v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 (1892). The McAuliffe case had nothing to do with unions, which is to say that Holmes was referring to the broader concept of having (or not having) a positive right to employment not to the narrower concept of having (or not having) a right to work without being a union member. Holmes point, in McAuliffe, was that people did not have a right to keep any particular job. They had a right to free speech, but that First Amendment right was not so robust as to protect them against getting fired for what they said. Justice Holmes maxim represented the law of the land for several decades. In 1952, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a collection of state laws designed to exclude communists from working in New York public schools. Adler v. Board of Ed. of City of New York, 342 U.S. 485 (1952). As Holmes had done in McAuliffe, the court recognized in Adler that the plaintiffs had First Amendment rights but that they had no right to work for the State in the school system. The First Amendment could protect their liberty to retain their beliefs and associations, but they might have to go elsewhere for employment. Id. at In other words, the First Amendment did not protect a broad right to work in the job of one s choosing. Adler was decided 6-3 by conservatives on the Vinson Court just before Earl Warren was confirmed the new chief justice in The three dissenters in Adler were Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and William Douglas three FDR appointees who would soon become known as liberal lions on the Warren Court. The Warren Court eventually invoked the First Amendment to reject the McAuliffe/Adler view of employees rights. In 1968, Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for an almost-unanimous Supreme Court,
2 held that public employees could not be fired for speaking out on matters of public importance. Pickering v. Board of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (1968). After Pickering, Justice Holmes McAuliffe maxim was reduced to a footnote, often invoked only to be rejected, as courts (following Pickering) generally found that the First Amendment protected the right of public employees to work without being punished for their speech or associations. See, e.g., Tygrett v. Washington, 543 F.2d 840, & n.39 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ( we no longer regard as viable Justice Holmes statement in McAuliffe ). Notably, however, Pickering was only almost-unanimous. Justice Byron White filed a separate opinion, in which he concurred with the core of the court s decision but disagreed with what he saw as an overly expansive view of the First Amendment s protections. As White saw it, there were certain kinds of speech that could still get a school teacher fired, without violation of the First Amendment. Id. at 584 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But it wasn t until White was part of a reconfigured Burger Court that he was able to successfully rein in what he saw as the excesses of Pickering. In 1983, White was joined by Nixon appointees William Burger, Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist and by the new Reagan appointee, Sandra Day O Connor in holding that public employees can be fired for what they say, if what they say is only a matter of personal interest and not a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). According to this new conservative coalition, the First Amendment did not protect a broad right to work. Public employees were still subject to personnel decision[s] that are made in reaction to the employee s behavior. Id. Connick was decided 5-4. Justice William Brennan, who had been part of the Pickering decision, dissented, joined by Justices Marshall (the author of Pickering), John Paul Stevens and Henry Blackmun. In other words, the liberal side of the Supreme Court still felt that the First Amendment ought to protect a broad right to work without fear of retribution for one s speech. See id. at 156 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Just a few years later, the new Rehnquist Court heard a case in which a public employee had made a private comment about President Ronald Reagan to her husband, who was also a fellow employee, and had been fired for it. The Supreme Court's conservatives Rehnquist, White, O Connor and the newly appointed Antonin Scalia again wanted to uphold the firing, under Connick. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 394 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting). But this time the liberal dissenters in Connick were joined by Justice Powell to form a majority, holding that, even after Connick, the First Amendment was still strong enough to protect a public employee s right to work and not be fired for something she said. Still later, the conservatives came back in the Roberts Court to once again limit the First Amendment s protection of a broader right to work without fear of retribution, holding that a public employee can be subjected to adverse employment actions for something he says this time if it was said pursuant to his official duties. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). According to Justice Anthony Kennedy joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas as well as the newly appointed Samuel Alito Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services. Id. at 418 (emphasis added). And again, the liberals Justices Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer all dissented, believing the First Amendment s protections ought to extend to protecting the employee against adverse action.
3 The Pickering-Connick-Rankin-Garcetti line of cases is still the law, when it comes to the broader right to work and First Amendment protections of that right. And from this line of cases, it s clear that where the broader right to work is concerned, it has long been the liberals who have embraced the First Amendment as a vehicle for protecting that right. The First Amendment and the Narrower Right to Work Meanwhile, as the Pickering-to-Garcetti line of cases developed regarding the broader right to work without fear of retribution for speech or associations, another line of cases was developing regarding the narrower, anti-union right to work. This narrower concept of the right to work developed as a response to closed shop agreements. That is, before 1947, an employer could lawfully agree to operate as a closed shop meaning, to facilitate the efficiency of negotiating with a single entity in collective bargaining, employers could lawfully agree to require that all employees be card carrying members of the employees union, thus making union membership a condition of employment. But the anti-union movement objected to these agreements, and began to advocate for a right to work without being required to join a union. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act promoted by big business and passed over President Harry Truman s veto made closed shops illegal. In the wake of Taft-Hartley, union membership could no longer be required as a condition of employment. But, under Taft-Hartley and other statutes, and as part of the employer-employee collective bargaining agreement, employers could still have union shops requiring nonunion employees to pay an "agency fee" to support the union s bargaining efforts. Plaintiffs challenged this agency fee under the First Amendment, claiming that it required nonunion members to support political speech and activity (by the union) that the nonunion member might disagree with. And in 1961, the Supreme Court indicated that agency fees would violate the First Amendment, to the extent they would require nonunion employees to support political speech they disagreed with. International Ass n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961). The appropriate remedy for those who disagreed with the union s political activity, however, was not to do away altogether with requiring nonunion members to pay fees. Instead, employers and unions could work together to ensure that nonunion members who did not wish to support the union s political activities were refunded any portion of their fees that was not used strictly for collective bargaining purposes. Id. at This became known as the fair share fee. The rationale for the fair share fee is that the union is required to negotiate on behalf of all employees, and any collective bargaining agreement that is reached applies to all employees. So, if the union obtains a wage increase or better working conditions, all employees benefit from the union s efforts. Because nonunion members benefit from the union s efforts every bit as much as union members do, nonunion employees could still be required to pay their fair share to support the union s bargaining efforts. Cf. Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S.,slip op. at 10 (2012) ( The primary purpose of permitting unions to collect fees from nonmembers is to prevent nonmembers from free riding on the union s efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained by the union s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred. ). But according to some advocates of the narrower, anti-union right to work, even the fair share fee was too much to ask. And in 1977, Detroit teachers brought their case to the Supreme Court, contending that
4 their First Amendment rights protected them against having to pay the fair share fee. But the court disagreed. In an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, the court noted that the fair share fee supported only the union s collective bargaining efforts, and that the nonunion employees were not required to pay any money to support the union s other political speech or activities. Though the fee requirement has an impact on [employees ] First Amendment interests, that impact was not so great as to outweigh the interests of labor relations, and therefore the fair share fee was not unconstitutional. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, (1977). Notably, though Justices Rehnquist and Powell wrote concurring opinions expressing some disagreement with the majority s reasoning in Abood, no one dissented. Justice Powell joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun wanted a more extensive examination of the First Amendment concerns, but did not indicate any belief that the government s interests in labor relations could not still overcome those First Amendment concerns. Id. at (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment). And Justice Rehnquist actually referred to his position in another case (Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 376 (1976) (Powell, J., dissenting, joined by C.J. Burger and J. Rehnquist)) to indicate that he had no problem, under the First Amendment, with requiring public employees to contribute to the collective bargaining expenses of a labor union. Abood, 431 U.S. at (Rehnquist, J., concurring). In other words, the same conservative justices who had no problem curbing the scope of First Amendment protections in the Connick and Rankin cases, also didn t seem to have much of a problem with curbing the scope of the First Amendment where the narrower, anti-union right to work was concerned. In short, the narrower right to work up through and after Abood was about only the right to work without having to join a union, and without having to financially support a union s political activities. But now things have changed. Harris v. Quinn and the New Right to Work The facts, details and potential ramifications of the Harris decision have been covered extensively. In short, the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy created a new class of "quasi-public employees," to distinguish Harris from Abood, and then held in direct contrast to Abood that requiring these employees to pay a fair share fee to support the union s collective bargaining efforts violated the employees First Amendment rights. Harris v. Quinn, U.S., 134 S. Ct (June 30, 2014). What is most striking about the Harris decision is its break with past jurisprudence and specifically with its break from past conservative jurisprudence. As demonstrated above, Supreme Court conservatives have for decades rejected using the First Amendment to protect the right to work. In Abood, the high court s most stalwart conservatives even agreed with the rejection of a First Amendment challenge to a fair share fee requirement. In fact, the Harris majority is the exact same majority that, just a few years ago in Garcetti, rejected a First Amendment challenge to an adverse employment action by declaring that government employers need a significant degree of control over their employees words and actions. 547 U.S. at 418. Why this should justify actions against a public employee in Garcetti, but cannot justify requiring public employees to pay a fair share fee to support a union s efforts to improve working conditions, is difficult to discern.
5 Over the past 10 years or more, the increasingly anti-union rhetoric of the political right, combined with the increasingly popular view that the Roberts Court believes in expansive First Amendment rights, perhaps made the Harris decision seem natural and even predictable, coming from the Supreme Court s conservative majority. But, make no mistake: Harris represents something new a shift in the conservative view of the First Amendment in the context of public employment and a significant broadening of what was once a much narrower right to work in the context of public employee unions. By Jason P. Steed, Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP Jason Steed is an associate in Bell Nunnally & Martin's Dallas office. Originally published on Law360, September 2, Posted with permission.
AP Gov Chapter 15 Outline
Law in the United States is based primarily on the English legal system because of our colonial heritage. Once the colonies became independent from England, they did not establish a new legal system. With
More informationCHAPTER 9. The Judiciary
CHAPTER 9 The Judiciary The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law: The court
More informationThe Judicial Branch. CP Political Systems
The Judicial Branch CP Political Systems Standards Content Standard 4: The student will examine the United States Constitution by comparing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government
More informationUnit 4C STUDY GUIDE. The Judiciary. Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III.
Unit 4C STUDY GUIDE The Judiciary Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III. 1. What power is vested in the courts? 2. The shall extend to all
More informationAP Government Chapter 15 Reading Guide: The Judiciary
AP Government Chapter 15 Reading Guide: The Judiciary 1. According to Federalist 78, what s Hamilton s argument for why the SCOTUS is the weakest of the branches? Do you agree? 2. So the court has the
More informationUnderstanding the U.S. Supreme Court
Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court Processing Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Decision Making The Role of Law and Legal Principles Supreme Court Decision Making The Role of Politics Conducting Research
More informationNetwork Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court:
Network Derived Domain Maps of the United States Supreme Court: 50 years of Co-Voting Data and a Case Study on Abortion Peter A. Hook, J.D., M.S.L.I.S. Electronic Services Librarian, Indiana University
More informationThe Effect of Public Opinion on the Voting Behavior of Supreme Court Justices. By Kristen Rosano
The Effect of Public Opinion on the Voting Behavior of Supreme Court Justices By Kristen Rosano A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina in partial fulfillment of the requirements
More informationWhat If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?
What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal? With a possible Merrick Garland confirmation and the prospect of another Democrat in the Oval Office, the left can t help but dream about an ideal judicial docket:
More informationSources and Consequences of Polarization on the U.S. Supreme Court Brandon Bartels
Sources and Consequences of Polarization on the U.S. Supreme Court Brandon Bartels George Washington University Sources of Polarization Changing criteria for judicial appointments Demise of patronage and
More information2007 Annenberg Public Policy Center Judicial Survey Exact Question Wording, By Category
2007 Annenberg Public Policy Center Judicial Survey Exact Question Wording, By Category Prepared by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands n
More informationThe United States Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court Justices The main job of the nation s top court is to decide whether laws are allowable under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
More informationU.S. Court System. The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D. C. Diagram of the U.S. Court System
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html Page 1 of 5 10/10/011 U.S. Court System The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D. C. Diagram of the U.S. Court System U.S. Supreme Court Federal
More informationCh.9: The Judicial Branch
Ch.9: The Judicial Branch Learning Goal Students will be able to analyze the structure, function, and processes of the judicial branch as established in Article III of the Constitution; the judicial branches
More informationRenewed talk to limit a Supreme Court justice's time on the bench
Renewed talk to limit a Supreme Court justice's time on the bench By Associated Press, adapted by Newsela staff on 02.26.16 Word Count 911 U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for a group photo at the Supreme
More informationCONTENTS Chapter 1: Constitutional Background 21
CONTENTS Introduction 12 Chapter 1: Constitutional Background 21 The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States 21 Primary Source: The Articles of Confederation (Excerpts) 22 Constitutional
More informationLEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying Chapter 16, you should be able to: 1. Understand the nature of the judicial system. 2. Explain how courts in the United States are organized and the nature of their jurisdiction.
More informationINTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15
INTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15 Objective: SWBAT describe the type of court system in the US and how the Supreme Court works. Agenda: Turn in Late Work Judicial Branch Notes When your friend asks to borrow
More informationAppearing in the Film
Film Guide Narrated by Emmy-award winning actor Bradley Whitford, The Right to Unite is a short documentary that reveals the profound impact of Supreme Court decisions on working Americans. Powerful corporate
More informationInterpreting the Constitution
Interpreting the Constitution Now that we have learned about the contents of the United States Constitution, we must now look at how it is used. The Founding Fathers knew the world would change in ways
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 13-57095 07/01/2014 ID: 9153024 DktEntry: 17 Page: 1 of 8 No. 13-57095 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
More informationIII. OBAMA & THE COURTS
III. OBAMA & THE COURTS What is the most important issue in this election for many pro-family/pro-life conservatives? Consider these two numbers: Five That s the number of Supreme Court justices who will
More informationCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Petitioner: Citizens United Respondent: Federal Election Commission Petitioner s Claim: That the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First
More informationa. Exceptions: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, and a few others B. Debate is over how the Constitution should be interpreted
I. The American Judicial System A. Only in the United States do judges play so large a role in policy-making - The policy-making potential of the federal judiciary is enormous. Woodrow Wilson once described
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 Stephen Kerr Eugster Telephone: +1.0.. Facsimile: +1...1 Attorney for Plaintiff Filed March 1, 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1 STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER, Plaintiff,
More informationForeword 11 Introduction 14. Chapter 1: Legalizing Abortion
Contents Foreword 11 Introduction 14 Chapter 1: Legalizing Abortion Case Overview: Roe v. Wade (1973) 22 1. Majority Opinion: The Fourteenth Amendment 25 Protects a Woman s Right to Abortion Harry Blackmun
More informationChapter 10: The Judicial Branch
Chapter 10: The Judicial Branch Section 1 Objectives: 1.) Explain the need for laws and a legal system 2.) Describe the role of courts in our legal system 3.) Compare the roles of state and federal courts
More informationPatterson, Chapter 14. The Federal Judicial System Applying the Law. Chapter Quiz
Patterson, Chapter 14 The Federal Judicial System Applying the Law Chapter Quiz 1. Federal judges are a) nominated by the Senate and approved by both houses of Congress. b) nominated by the president and
More information6+ Decades of Freedom of Expression in the U.S. Supreme Court
6+ Decades of Freedom of Expression in the U.S. Supreme Court Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Kevin Quinn June 30, 2018 1 Summary Using a dataset consisting of the 2,967 votes cast by the Justices in the
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 14-1543 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RONALD S. HINES, DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, v. Petitioner, BUD E. ALLDREDGE, JR., DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition
More informationTHE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE FEDERAL COURTS
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE FEDERAL COURTS DUAL COURT SYSTEM There are really two court systems in the United States National judiciary that extends over all 50 States Court systems found in each State (most
More informationSentencing May Change With 2 Kennedy Clerks On High Court
Sentencing May Change With 2 Kennedy Clerks On High Court By Alan Ellis and Mark Allenbaugh Published by Law360 (July 26, 2018) Shortly before his confirmation just over a year ago, we wrote about what
More informationChapter 7: The Judicial Branch
Chapter 7: The Judicial Branch US Government Week of January 22, 2018 [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of
More informationAPPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: WILLIAM L. MESSENGER, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, Virginia.
16-441-cv Jarvis v. Cuomo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY
More informationThe Nine: Inside The Secret World Of The Supreme Court PDF
The Nine: Inside The Secret World Of The Supreme Court PDF Just in time for the 2008 presidential election, where the future of the Supreme Court will be at stake, Jeffrey Toobin reveals an institution
More informationNote REDEFINING WORKPLACE SPEECH AFTER JANUS
Copyright 2019 by Theo A. Lesczynski Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 113, No. 4 Note REDEFINING WORKPLACE SPEECH AFTER JANUS Theo A. Lesczynski ABSTRACT We have a First Amendment right to criticize the government.
More informationSPOTLIGHT. The Supreme Court 1
SPOTLIGHT The Supreme Court 1 WWW.KIDSDISCOVER.COM 1 2 3 With their serious black robes, the Supreme Court may look stern and even dull to some, but it is full of high drama. Some of the most historic
More informationJudiciary and Political Parties. Court Rulings on Parties. Presidential Nomination Rules. Presidential Nomination Rules
Judiciary and Political Parties Court rulings on rights of parties Parties and selection of judges Political party influence on judges decisions Court Rulings on Parties Supreme Court can and does avoid
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Youth Movements: Protest! Power! Progress? Supreme Court of the United States Morse v. Frederick (2007) Director: Eli Liebell-McLean Assistant Director: Lucas Sass CJMUNC 2018 1 2018 Highland Park Model
More informationJune 27, 2008 JUSTICES, RULING 5-4, ENDORSE PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUN
June 27, 2008 JUSTICES, RULING 5-4, ENDORSE PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUN By LINDA GREENHOUSE The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual
More informationThe Judicial Branch INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
The Judicial Branch INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS I. Types of law. A. Statutory: deals w/written statutes (laws). B. Common. 1. Based upon a system of unwritten law. 2. Unwritten laws are based upon
More informationChapter 13: The Judiciary
Learning Objectives «Understand the Role of the Judiciary in US Government and Significant Court Cases Chapter 13: The Judiciary «Apply the Principle of Judicial Review «Contrast the Doctrine of Judicial
More informationKen Winneg: (215) , Kathleen Hall Jamieson: (215) ,
1 Embargoed for release: For more information: Friday, September 16, 9:30 am Ken Winneg: (215) 898-2641, kwinneg@asc.upenn.edu Kathleen Hall Jamieson: (215) 898-9400, kjamieson@asc.upenn.edu Visit: www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org
More informationU.S. Supreme Court 1998 Line Item Veto Act is Unconstitutional - Order Code A August 18, 1998
U.S. Supreme Court 1998 Line Item Veto Act is Unconstitutional - Order Code 98-690A August 18, 1998 Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress - Line Item Veto Act Unconstitutional: Clinton
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...4 II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED...9 III. BACKGROUND California s Agency Shop" Provision...
BENCH MEMORANDUM To: From: The Honorable The Moot Court Board Bench Memo Committee Rhea Ghosh (chair) Garrett Cardillo Catherine Eagan Colleen McCullough Kaiyi Xie Date: November 16, 2015 Re: University
More informationFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association
Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law Volume 38 Issue 2 Article 5 7-1-2017 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Diana Liu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjell
More informationLecture Notes Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S (2002) Keith Burgess-Jackson 29 April 2016
Lecture Notes Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304-54 (2002) Keith Burgess-Jackson 29 April 2016 0. Composition of the Court. In Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), five justices held that capital punishment for the
More informationThe Roberts Court: Year 1
The Roberts Court: Year 1 Prof. Lori A. Ringhand* The 2005 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is of extraordinary interest to court observers. For the first time in 11 years, the Court s term commenced without
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUnit 7 SG 1. Campaign Finance
Unit 7 SG 1 Campaign Finance I. Campaign Finance Campaigning for political office is expensive. 2016 Election Individual Small Donors Clinton $105.5 million Trump 280 million ($200 or less) Individual
More informationTopic 7 The Judicial Branch. Section One The National Judiciary
Topic 7 The Judicial Branch Section One The National Judiciary Under the Articles of Confederation Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no national judiciary. All courts were State courts Under
More informationThe selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices
ARTICLE The selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices Norman Dorsen* The selection process for U.S. Supreme Court justices has grown ever more complex. Presidents have the constitutional power to nominate
More informationCOMMENTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER: THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
COMMENTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER: THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
More informationAmerica s Federal Court System
America s Federal Court System How do we best balance the government s need to protect the security of the nation while guaranteeing the individuals personal liberties? I.) Judges vs. Legislators I.) Judges
More information2018 Jackson Lewis P.C.
2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. 2018 THE MATERIALS CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION WERE PREPARED BY THE LAW FIRM OF JACKSON LEWIS P.C. FOR THE PARTICIPANTS OWN REFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION SEMINARS PRESENTED
More informationCampaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Order Code RS22920 July 17, 2008 Summary Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission L. Paige Whitaker Legislative
More informationFlag Protection: A Brief History and Summary of Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendments
: A Brief History and Summary of Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendments John R. Luckey Legislative Attorney February 7, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees
More information4/17/2007 3:12:32 PM
Constitutional Law Tenth Circuit Decides an English-Only Policy Enacted By a Government Employer Does Not Violate Free Speech of Public Employees Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2006)
More informationUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA Edmond, Oklahoma Jackson College of Graduate Studies & Research
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA Edmond, Oklahoma Jackson College of Graduate Studies & Research Judicial Activism: A Study of the Warren Through Rehnquist Courts A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY
More informationThe Roberts Court and Freedom of Speech
Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 63 Issue 3 Article 2 5-2011 The Roberts Court and Freedom of Speech Erwin Chemerinsky University of California, Irvine School of Law Follow this and additional
More informationNCSL Supreme Court Roundup Part II:
NCSL Supreme Court Roundup Part II: Schuette v. CDA (affirmative action / equal protection clause) McCullen v. Coakley (abortion buffer zone / 1 st Am.) McCutcheon v. FEC (campaign finance / 1 st Am. )
More informationPublic Employee Free Speech: The Policy Reasons for Rejecting a Per Se Rule Precluding Speech Rights
Boston College Law Review Volume 46 Issue 4 Number 4 Article 5 7-1-2005 Public Employee Free Speech: The Policy Reasons for Rejecting a Per Se Rule Precluding Speech Rights Marni M. Zack Follow this and
More informationThe Ideological Operation of the United States Supreme Court
The College at Brockport: State University of New York Digital Commons @Brockport Senior Honors Theses Master's Theses and Honors Projects Spring 2011 The Ideological Operation of the United States Supreme
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 533 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationBuckley v. Valeo (1976)
Appellant: James L. Buckley Appellee: Francis R. Valeo, secretary of the U.S. Senate Appellant s Claim: That various provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA)
More informationRoe v. Wade: 35 Years Young, and Once Again a Factor in a Presidential Race VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS
Landmarks Roe v. Wade: 35 Years Young, and Once Again a Factor in a Presidential Race VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Revered and reviled as perhaps no other Supreme Court ruling of the 20th Century, Roe v. Wade
More informationTHE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Article III. The Role of the Federal Court
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Section I Courts, Term of Office Section II Jurisdiction o Scope of Judicial Power o Supreme Court o Trial by Jury Section III Treason o Definition Punishment Article III The Role of
More informationConstitutional Law - Procedural Due Process - The Rights of a Non-Tenured Teacher upon Non- Renewal of His Contract at a State School
DePaul Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Spring 1973 Article 8 Constitutional Law - Procedural Due Process - The Rights of a Non-Tenured Teacher upon Non- Renewal of His Contract at a State School William E.
More informationJustice John Paul Stevens as Abortion-Rights Strategist
Justice John Paul Stevens as Abortion-Rights Strategist Linda Greenhouse * During his thirty-four years on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has played a significant but largely unrecognized
More informationA More Perfect Union. The Three Branches of the Federal Government. Teacher s Guide. The Presidency The Congress The Supreme Court
A More Perfect Union The Three Branches of the Federal Government The Presidency The Congress The Supreme Court Teacher s Guide Teacher s Guide for A More Perfect Union : The Three Branches of the Federal
More informationNational Government Review. Kinda like Heads Up!
National Government Review Kinda like Heads Up! Teamwork! Cannot say a word in the term (or derivative thereof) Must be Civics/Government specific in your clues But can use prior knowledge and history
More informationINTRODUCTION THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Trace the historical evolution of the policy agenda of the Supreme Court. Examine the ways in which American courts are both democratic and undemocratic institutions. CHAPTER OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Although
More informationAssociate Justice Antonin Scalia
The Future of the Court Sotomayor Breyer Alito Kagan Thomas Scalia Roberts Kennedy NotoriousRBG Eric J. Williams, PhD. Dept. Chair of Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies Sonoma State University Associate
More informationAppendix A In this appendix, we present the following:
Online Appendix for: Charles Cameron and Jonathan Kastellec Are Supreme Court Nominations a Move-the-Median Game? January th, 16 Appendix A presents supplemental information relevant to our empirical analyses,
More informationJustice Souter on Government Speech
BYU Law Review Volume 2010 Issue 6 Article 4 12-18-2010 Justice Souter on Government Speech Sheldon Nahmod Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the First
More information4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule On RICO's Reach
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule
More informationThe Courts CHAPTER. Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction, 7E by Frank Schmalleger
CHAPTER 7 The Courts 1 America s Dual Court System The United States has courts on both the federal and state levels. This dual system reflects the state s need to retain judicial autonomy separate from
More informationState Constitutions as the Future for Civil Rights
48 N.M. L. Rev. 259 (Establishing New Rights: A Look at Aid in Dying (Summer) 2018) 2018 State Constitutions as the Future for Civil Rights Erwin Chemerinsky University of California Berkeley Law Recommended
More informationLate on a January afternoon in 2006, Senator Charles Schumer was goading Samuel Alito to explain his stand on abortion rights. The Senate Judiciary
1 Late on a January afternoon in 2006, Senator Charles Schumer was goading Samuel Alito to explain his stand on abortion rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee was in its second full day of hearings on
More informationBY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER F. ALLEN, & SUSAN E. JACOBY. I. Introduction. Background
Russell v. SNFA: Illinois Supreme Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction Under a Stream of Commerce Theory in the Wake of McIntyre v. Nicastro BY SHEILA A. SUNDVALL, CHRISTOPHER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:13-cv-02469-N Document 37 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 17 PageID 706 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOSE SERNA, MARY RICHARDSON, ROBERTO CRUZ,
More informationParental Notification of Abortion
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp October 1990 ~ H0 USE
More informationWas There Ever Such a Thing as Judicial Self-Restraint?
Was There Ever Such a Thing as Judicial Self-Restraint? Lee Epstein & William M. Landes* Richard Posner s version of judicial self-restraint implies that individual Justices who embrace restraint would
More informationContemporary History
Contemporary History What have been three causes of social and cultural change in America during the last 50 years? in the workplace Women and minorities The Supreme Court s Role New groups Technology
More informationC-SPAN SUPREME COURT SURVEY March 23, 2012
C-SPAN SUPREME COURT SURVEY March 23, 2012 ROBERT GREEN, PRINCIPAL 1110 VERMONT AVE SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-842-0500 Methodology Penn Schoen Berland (PSB) conducted online interviews on March
More informationCase 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION Justin Carey; JoBeth Deibel; David Gaston; Roger Kinney; and Keith Sanborn,
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Surveys: Term
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2013 2014 Term Harris v. Quinn: What We Talk About When We Talk About Right-to-Work Laws Michael J. Yelnosky* Who could oppose a right to work? What could anyone find objectionable
More informationTHE JUDICIARY. In this chapter we will cover
THE JUDICIARY THE JUDICIARY In this chapter we will cover The Constitution and the National Judiciary The American Legal System The Federal Court System How Federal Court Judges are Selected The Supreme
More informationThe Proper Role for the Supreme Court: Activist or Restraint by Dave Saffell Introduction
The Proper Role for the Supreme Court: Activist or Restraint by Dave Saffell Introduction One of the enduring subjects for debate about American government is: What is the proper role for the Supreme Court
More informationSupreme Court Decisions
Hoover Press : Anderson DP5 HPANNE0900 10-04-00 rev1 page 187 PART TWO Supreme Court Decisions This section does not try to be a systematic review of Supreme Court decisions in the field of campaign finance;
More informationThe Burger Court Opinion Writing Database
The Burger Court Opinion Writing Database Roudebush v. Hartke 405 U.S. 15 (1972) Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University Forrest Maltzman, George Washington
More information- F.3d, 2009 WL , C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO )
CITE AS: 1 HASTINGS. SCI. AND TECH. L.J. 269 ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - F.3d, 2009 WL 877642, C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO. 2008-1248) I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Defendant-Appellant
More informationDEFENDING EQUILIBRIUM-ADJUSTMENT
DEFENDING EQUILIBRIUM-ADJUSTMENT Orin S. Kerr I thank Professor Christopher Slobogin for responding to my recent Article, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment. 1 My Article contended
More informationPROCEDURE AND STRATEGY IN GAY RIGHTS LITIGATION
PROCEDURE AND STRATEGY IN GAY RIGHTS LITIGATION THOMAS F. COLEMAN This morning we heard Cary Boggan, chairperson of the A.B.A. Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, discuss the right to privacy
More informationCan Ideal Point Estimates be Used as Explanatory Variables?
Can Ideal Point Estimates be Used as Explanatory Variables? Andrew D. Martin Washington University admartin@wustl.edu Kevin M. Quinn Harvard University kevin quinn@harvard.edu October 8, 2005 1 Introduction
More informationNo MARK JANUS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16-1466 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARK JANUS, v. Petitioner, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of
More informationExpert Analysis Strip-Searched for Failing to Pay a Speeding Ticket? Florence And the Fourth Amendment
Westlaw Journal CLASS ACTION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 18, ISSUE 11 / DECEMBER 2011 Expert Analysis Strip-Searched for Failing to Pay a Speeding Ticket?
More informationSHIFTS IN SUPREME COURT OPINION ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS
SHIFTS IN SUPREME COURT OPINION ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS Before 1970, campaign finance regulation was weak and ineffective, and the Supreme Court infrequently heard cases on it. The Federal Corrupt Practices
More informationCopyright 2018 by Courtlyn G. Roser-Jones Vol. 112, No. 4. Articles
Copyright 2018 by Courtlyn G. Roser-Jones Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 112, No. 4 Articles RECONCILING AGENCY FEE DOCTRINE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE MODERN PUBLIC SECTOR UNION Courtlyn G. Roser-Jones ABSTRACT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION August 26, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 292288 Saginaw Circuit Court REGINAL LAVAL SHORT, also known as LC
More information